We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[Howaythelads]

Macbeth

 

Do you believe, like your close mate, that the Board(s) of 60's, 70's and 80's that almost emptied SJP showed as much ambition for success as the current Board?

 

Yes or no will do.

 

Thanks 

 

No. That board showed no ambition at all.

 

Do you see the financial mess that the current board have managed us into, as being acceptable ? So, after 9 (or 15 if you wish) years of being responsible for the finances of the club do you view them as being successful as they have us losing £1m per month ?

 

Yes or no will do.

 

Thanks

 

Yes.

 

As you decided that earlier 'yes or no' wasn't enough, I'll decide it also isn't enough for me. I believe the current Board made an error by appointing Souness, and it is that single mistake that has put the club in the financial situation it finds itself it now. We will recover under the current Board, we may not under an alternative.

 

Thanks

[Mick]

i really don't know much about the running of the club/finances/etc...so don't get annoyed with me for this question, but doesn't shepard have a vested interest in the club doing well, as then he'd be able to take even more money out? surely if money is his only goal, then he would want the team to better.

once again, i dont know much on the subject...

 

you are quite right James. They must want the team to do well, it benefits everybody. They have allowed all their managers money to attempt it. Don;t let anyone kid you that a dividend of a couple of million quid a year is the difference between us winning stuff or not, because it isn't. All the managers have had enough regardless. They choose to back their managers because they want them to be successful, and lots of clubs don't do this.

 

 

 

They've taken about £24 million out in dividends, they've had massive pay rises and have done some dodgy deals where they've sold thing to the club or each other and leased them back to the club for an annual fee which is almost the same as the actual selling price and they did this for the good of the club. bluebiggrin.gif

 

What benefit did the club get out of the warehouse the Shepherds sold each other?  If the club needed it then why didn't the club buy it and save in the region of £2 million which now sits in a Shepherd bank account?

 

For an idea of what our directors take out of the front door look here http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/boardpay2.htm. Take a look at the graphs to see how the colours have changed since Shepherd came to power then tell me he's not in it for the money. 

[Howaythelads]

 

 

I see. And Keegan bust the clubs [ex world record] transfer fee did he ? As clueless as ever.

 

Do you save Green Shield stamps 

 

here is a thread, that you have appeared to avoid. Why not answer it, before you adopt your "damned whatever they do" stand in the usual head up the arse style. I've bumped it to make it easier.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31684.0.html

 

 

So select the scenario....

 

A) The Board should gamble by spending cash in January in an effort to avoid relegation, in the knowledge that we may still go down and then what......? One division down, bigger debt.......

 

B) The Board should be prudent with the finances and refuse to release any funds, meaning we go with the current squad and try to avoid the drop with what we have.

 

 

 

 

I hadn't seen that thread, and I've only read the first page.

 

The board should not be in the situation where they have to gamble with the club's finances. Except when they release figures every 6 months they are the sole guardins of the club's finances. They have consciously taklen us to where we are.

 

When ever the club have spent money the board have approved it. They explicitly say in the report this week that it is their sole responsibility, no one elses. This is how it should be.

 

We should never ever have to gamble of spending. They have always known how much money is available. If the club has spent £50m over the last two summers then that is the boards view of how much the club could afford. I would expect they have no money tyo spend in January. Nothign has changed form August, we have had no unexpected CL money so hopefully they spent all they could afford in the summer.

 

There is an optin on C.

 

Option C is the real extension of option A. Option C is that we spend, more than we can afford on trying to stay up, and we go down. Our fall would be harder than Leeds.

 

So I think that means B.

 

Let me get this straight. You're saying there are no circumstances under which a club should speculate in order to improve the squad and performance on the pitch?

 

So please confirm that if we have half a dozen more injuries in the next 4 weeks to key players that the Board should accept relegation rather than borrow the money from somewhere to bring in players that would enable us to retain our PL status?

 

[Mick]

 

Charlton was always against spending money on footballers. It suited them. I'm sure they hoped he would do well, but they knew it would be on the cheap if it happened. Who exactly do you mean when you said "buy the others " ? Heard, Riley, Cunningham, Trewick, Ryan, Albert Craig, Darren Jackson, Andy Thomas etc [between Charlton, McFaul and cox]. Or do you think they compare with Owen, Dyer, Woodgate, Jenas, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Goma, Duff, Parker etc .... not to mention selling GAzza, Beardsley and Waddle....as you think the boards are the same ..........

 

 

 

Charlton was against spending because he said the club was skint when he became manager, he something along the lines of him only spending what the club could afford and that he would spend it as if it was his own, I seem to remember him saying that managers before him had spent a lot of the clubs money without getting value, again, they are not exact quotes so might be slightly out.

 

Was this because they splashed out on Keegan, McDermott, Beardsley, etc?  I've no idea if he was referring to these or others before them, he wasn't specific.

[NE5]

i really don't know much about the running of the club/finances/etc...so don't get annoyed with me for this question, but doesn't shepard have a vested interest in the club doing well, as then he'd be able to take even more money out? surely if money is his only goal, then he would want the team to better.

once again, i dont know much on the subject...

 

you are quite right James. They must want the team to do well, it benefits everybody. They have allowed all their managers money to attempt it. Don;t let anyone kid you that a dividend of a couple of million quid a year is the difference between us winning stuff or not, because it isn't. All the managers have had enough regardless. They choose to back their managers because they want them to be successful, and lots of clubs don't do this.

 

 

They've taken about £24 million out in dividends,

 

the managers have had enough money to be successful regardless, that is if you don't consider qualifying regularly for europe successful to a degree....I will however also remind you that it is a damn sight better than the old board that you think is "just the same"...

 

For an idea of what our directors take out of the front door look here http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/boardpay2.htm. Take a look at the graphs to see how the colours have changed since Shepherd came to power then tell me he's not in it for the money. 

 

bluesleep.gif

 

I hope this hedge fund isn't in it for the money.

[NE5]

 

Charlton was always against spending money on footballers. It suited them. I'm sure they hoped he would do well, but they knew it would be on the cheap if it happened. Who exactly do you mean when you said "buy the others " ? Heard, Riley, Cunningham, Trewick, Ryan, Albert Craig, Darren Jackson, Andy Thomas etc [between Charlton, McFaul and cox]. Or do you think they compare with Owen, Dyer, Woodgate, Jenas, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Goma, Duff, Parker etc .... not to mention selling GAzza, Beardsley and Waddle....as you think the boards are the same ..........

 

 

 

Charlton was against spending because he said the club was skint when he became manager, he something along the lines of him only spending what the club could afford and that he would spend it as if it was his own, I seem to remember him saying that managers before him had spent a lot of the clubs money without getting value, again, they are not exact quotes so might be slightly out.

 

Was this because they splashed out on Keegan, McDermott, Beardsley, etc?  I've no idea if he was referring to these or others before them, he wasn't specific.

 

by your own words, in earlier theads, we were the 3rd or 4th best supported club in the country. So how could Spurs afford to buy Waddle and Gazza from us ?

 

If you think the club "splashed out" on McDermott and Beardsley, it only proves - again - that you don't know what you are talking about. As was said in that thread a while ago that you started then deleted because you were being proved wrong, clubs such as West Ham, West Brom and others had higher transfer records than we did.

 

And - think about what you are saying. Having this platform and not attempting to build on it through not showing ambition and speculating, which is what you and others such as macbeth preach, results in .... welll..... where we ended up as a result, or trodding the same path they had taken for the previous 20 years ...

 

 

[Mick]

 

bluesleep.gif

 

I hope this hedge fund isn't in it for the money.

 

I don't think anybody will be too bothered how much they took out if it was taken based on performance, I wouldn't care how much Shepherd took out either if it was performance related because on his performance he'd be paying the club.

[NE5]

 

bluesleep.gif

 

I hope this hedge fund isn't in it for the money.

 

I don't think anybody will be too bothered how much they took out if it was taken based on performance, I wouldn't care how much Shepherd took out either if it was performance related because on his performance he'd be paying the club.

 

I dread to think what you would say if you supported one of the 86 clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we have, or the numerous ones that we have overtaken during this boards time in office.

 

[Mick]

 

by your own words, in earlier theads, we were the 3rd or 4th best supported club in the country. So how could Spurs afford to buy Waddle and Gazza from us ?

 

And - think about what you are saying. Having this platform and not attempting to build on it through not showing ambition and speculating, which is what you and others such as macbeth preach, results in .... welll..... where we ended up as a result, or trodding the same path they had taken for the previous 20 years ...

 

 

 

A level of support isn’t everything as it's not the only source of revenue.  If you ever attended away games you will have seen that other clubs had grounds which generated cash through corporate facilities which we have now (thanks to Sir John) but didn't have back then.

 

1 person paying £1 also generates more than 2 paying 25p, I can remember going to a lot of grounds and paying more than for home games, especially around London and the south.

 

You would have known this if you had gone to matches.  bluebiggrin.gif

[Mick]

 

I dread to think what you would say if you supported one of the 86 clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we have, or the numerous ones that we have overtaken during this boards time in office.

 

 

Look at the league table to see who have overtaken us while we've had Shepherd, how many of those clubs have the resources to do that?

[NE5]

 

by your own words, in earlier theads, we were the 3rd or 4th best supported club in the country. So how could Spurs afford to buy Waddle and Gazza from us ?

 

And - think about what you are saying. Having this platform and not attempting to build on it through not showing ambition and speculating, which is what you and others such as macbeth preach, results in .... welll..... where we ended up as a result, or trodding the same path they had taken for the previous 20 years ...

 

 

 

A level of support isn’t everything as it's not the only source of revenue.  If you ever attended away games you will have seen that other clubs had grounds which generated cash through corporate facilities which we have now (thanks to Sir John) but didn't have back then.

 

Class  :lol: Keep it up laddie ......  :lol:

 

 

[NE5]

 

I dread to think what you would say if you supported one of the 86 clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we have, or the numerous ones that we have overtaken during this boards time in office.

 

 

Look at the league table to see who have overtaken us while we've had Shepherd, how many of those clubs have the resources to do that?

 

As I have quoted, from fact. This current board have ran the club since 1992 - bar Fletcher - and it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Hall jnr who recruited the manager who got us to 2nd place. You still don't seem to understand that the major shareholders are the same people as in 1992, despite the fact I have told you plenty of times, this means the board is composed of the same people making the major decisions throughout this whole period, good and bad.

 

You think one person chooses the manager don't you, and the major shareholders let him do it hahaha...priceless, again .....

 

 

[Mick]

 

A level of support isn’t everything as it's not the only source of revenue.  If you ever attended away games you will have seen that other clubs had grounds which generated cash through corporate facilities which we have now (thanks to Sir John) but didn't have back then.

Class  :lol: Keep it up laddie ......    :lol:

 

 

 

Remember when you said you'd attended about 900 games and had supported the club for 40 odd years, divide 900 by 40 odd and you don't get that many per season.  I think it worked out at about half of the games so you either missed a lot at home to get that average or didn't go to many away, which is it? bluebiggrin.gif

 

Not that this has anything to do with Shepherd failing.

[Mick]

 

As I have quoted, from fact. This current board have ran the club since 1992 - bar Fletcher - and it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Hall jnr who recruited the manager who got us to 2nd place. You still don't seem to understand that the major shareholders are the same people as in 1992, despite the fact I have told you plenty of times, this means the board is composed of the same people making the major decisions throughout this whole period, good and bad.

 

You think one person chooses the manager don't you, and the major shareholders let him do it hahaha...priceless, again .....

 

 

 

So I guess our failure since Shepherd took over is down to coincidence and so it the rise in the amount of cash going to the two families.  It's got nothing to do with the man at the top, the great chairman who has finished below shitty Ellis more than above.

[Howaythelads]

Mick

 

Deep down you know the Board hasn't failed, you're just at the point where you can't bring yourself to admit it because you don't want to lose face.

 

The fact is, if the Board had failed to the extent of previous Boards you'd have jumped off the bandwagon by now and would be taking the piss out of those squandering their money supporting a shite club. Like you did in the 70's and 80's, clearly shown by your level of ignorance of the club during that period.

 

By the way, some of your comments earlier about McDermott and Beardsley should be archived forever. Fantastic level of ignorance, it's just a shame there aren't enough people on this forum to know it. You should try posting that and your other shite on Skunkers, I think the only support you'll get might be over Lee because there is a split due to the misplaced adoration of Macdonald despite the improved team performances and results following his sale. Let me know if you plan to post on Skunkers anyway, I'd make a point of logging in just to see the reaction from long standing supporters.

 

Same message to Macbeth, people may be disenchanted with Fred due to his errors, but try telling some long standing supporters that the current Board is no better than the Board of the 60's, 70 and 80's.........a type of Board we could easily return to if the current one moved out.

[NE5]

 

A level of support isn’t everything as it's not the only source of revenue.  If you ever attended away games you will have seen that other clubs had grounds which generated cash through corporate facilities which we have now (thanks to Sir John) but didn't have back then.

Class  :lol: Keep it up laddie ......    :lol:

 

 

 

Remember when you said you'd attended about 900 games and had supported the club for 40 odd years, divide 900 by 40 odd and you don't get that many per season.  I think it worked out at about half of the games so you either missed a lot at home to get that average or didn't go to many away, which is it? bluebiggrin.gif

 

Not that this has anything to do with Shepherd failing.

 

My mate who I have gone with since I was 16 has seen more than me because he hasn't lived away for periods like I did. One thing about living away from Newcastle though, is you tend to see more away games to compensate for some of the home games. I believe I told you that I used to get my train tickets for home games from Harry Rodden, RIP, who ran the London Branch of the supporters club when I was down south during the 1980's.

 

I saw you didn't reply when I posted this the last time.

 

But I'm not bothered if you believe me or not.

 

It is 800+, not quite 900 yet. As you do figures, or say you do, 850 divided by 42 years equals just over 20 games a season.

 

As I also said, it is sad you think the current board has failed despite qualifying for europe more often in the last 14 years than the previous ones did in over 30, yet you think they are great, for selling our best players too and almost permanently fighting relegation or being in the old 2nd division.

 

Why don't you comment further on your own incorrect statement that the club splashed big money on McDermott and Beardsley ?

 

 

[Guest TampaToon]

the relative success & ambition of the board can be debated endlessly, as the standards change wildly  from era to era or fan to fan....

 

but the point of this thread is that some (including oliver, the halls, and the fat man himself) seem to propogate this idea that FFS is putting money into the club:

a) out of his own pocket, rather than out of the clubs income\retained earnings

b) out of the kindness of his heart, rather than to keep the money machine going and nominally fulfilling his fiduciary obligation to the fans.

 

i just don't buy that FFS is making decisions based on what's best for the club or the fans.  if those things happen to be served in the process of doing what's best for him, that's just bonus.

 

FFS has to maintain a minimum level of activity to keep 52,000 butts in the seats every game and keep the merchandise flying off the shelves, and he does that. but when the club loses 6 million, he's not writing a check from his savings account, nor is he taking a hit in terms of salary or his other surreptitious means of pulling money out of the club.

 

the way money is spent is telling.  it appears to me he'd rather spend 15m on a name player who will shut the fans up and sell some jerseys than spend 5m on improving facilities, scouting, and training tools. why? because unsophisticated fans (and he thinks we're all unsohisticated) will appreciate (and ante up cash for) the flashy changes like name players and a fancy stadium; meanwhile the fundamentals of this club - means of scouting and developing youngsters and role-players, the ability to keep players fit, tools like ProZone - have fallen unbelievably behind the times...

 

that's the difference between NUFC and the better clubs right now - the historical willingness to not invest in areas of the club that don't trigger immediate new avalanches of spending from the fans.  we are way behind in the fundamentals, and no coach wanted to deal with that, or a chairman working at cross-purposes to their long-term success.

 

and when FFS has taken everything he wants from NUFC, he'll leave the club and fans not on the terms that are best for them, but on the terms that are best for him. all we can hope for is that the 2 happen to coincide.

[macbeth]

i really don't know much about the running of the club/finances/etc...so don't get annoyed with me for this question, but doesn't shepard have a vested interest in the club doing well, as then he'd be able to take even more money out? surely if money is his only goal, then he would want the team to better.

once again, i dont know much on the subject...

 

This is a good question, you shouldn't be worried about asking. I'll give a view, I'm sure NE5 will give another later  :winking:

 

The accepted wisdom is that the people running a business want it to do well so that they can get a long term gain from its success. So if the people running the business can consistently make a profit, and share that profit amongst shareholders the shareholders will be happy. The longer this goes on the better for everyone.

 

There is a difference with the way NUFC has been/is being run.

 

When people invest in a business they usually expect a return on the money they invest. So if a year ago you'd bought 100 shares in Tesco say, at £3.10 each so £310 in total you will be expecting a dividend on your invetsment. In Tesco's case they gave a dividend of 2.3% for each share. So last year you would have got about £7 in a dividend. At that rate you'd take about 50 years to get you investment back.

 

The other thing to bare in mind though is the price of the shares. Your £3.10 shares have gone up in price and are now worth £3.90. You could sell your 100 shares for £390, and make an £80 profit. The return you've had in a year would be this £80 and the £7 dividend, so £87 on your £310, a total of about 28% in a year.

 

It may be that you wish to keep your shares, happy that each year you'll make some dividend and the share price is liable to stay improving.

 

For the people running Tesco there will be a constant desire to get the share price higher, and to keep the dividend as high as the business can afford. The shareholders will want as much return on their money as possible, the people running the business will be also want dividends high, but will also want to have as much money in the business as possible to invest in more stores. Tesco's huge profits could allow a dividend of three times the size it is, but they want to keep the money in the business to help it grow.

 

With NUFC there is a couple of problems. The first, and main one is that the people running the business are exactly the same as the people demanding the dividends.

 

What this has resulted in is the demands of the shareholders being the top priority rather than those of the business. Usually the two are balanced out so both 'sides' are happy, in NUFC this is not the case.

 

Lets look at the Halls investment for example. The accounts of Cameron Hall show that the shares they own in NUFC cost them 11p to originally buy. The dividends that have subsequently been paid on each of these shares is 21p. So when you bought your Tesco shares it would take 50 years to get your investment back purely in dividends. In the Halls case it took 4 years to get their original money back, and 8 for them to double their money. At the end they still owned all the shares but had taken out £18m in dividends.

 

Why does this matter ? Well NE5 has said, repeatedly, that it doesn't. For the Halls to take out that amount of money (he says) makes no difference to the amount of money the club has to invest. The Halls don't own all the shares, but the total given to all shareholders is just under £31m. Again viewed by some as a negligible amount that has made no difference to the club. I'll not try and pargue the point I will let you work out whetehr it woudl be better for NUFC to have that £31m or for the shareholders to have it.

 

There is another effect though. Your original question on the people running the business to want long term success has gone. The Halls have doubled their money, and still own 55m shares. Why should they bother about the future ? If you had bought  a lottery ticket that won you £18m would you still be driven to buy a lottery ticket every week ? Maybe, but it wouldn't be that important. This is what has happened with the NUFC board. They have in the short term made more money out of the club than they could ever have dreamed of, there is no financial motivation for them any more.

As the Halls shares cost them 11p and the dividend  has already covered that, it means that if they sell their shares now it is pure profit. So at 70p they make rrrrr70p profit.

 

The other factor is that the shareholders have taken so much money out in the last 8 years that there is no more left to be taken. The people running the club have got the business losing £1m per month, which just cannot be allowed to continue. They have even persuaded the sponsors to give them sponsorship ahead of the time they would normally have expected it to help them get through. Over the last 9 years the board has managed to produce a financial loss of £58m, with £35m of that loss coming from giving money away to shareholders.

 

Most people running a business as recklessly as they are would get turfed out by the shareholders who just wouldn't let the situation continue. The shareholders would want to see some long-term strategy to protect their interests. Again, because the major shareholders also running the business stops this normal way of running a business happening.

 

The concern would be if the share price collapsed, to say 20p. The Halls could sell their shares to Shepherd for £10m, making a further personal profit of £10m. Shepherd could then move to own the whole club. He wouldn't have to publish accounts to let us know what is going on. If he is prepared to give away £35m when we know about it, just try and imagine how it would be if he had no watching what was going on.

[Howaythelads]

the relative success & ambition of the board can be debated endlessly, as the standards change wildly  from era to era or fan to fan....

 

but the point of this thread is that some (including oliver, the halls, and the fat man himself) seem to propogate this idea that FFS is putting money into the club:

a) out of his own pocket, rather than out of the clubs income\retained earnings

b) out of the kindness of his heart, rather than to keep the money machine going and nominally fulfilling his fiduciary obligation to the fans.

 

i just don't buy that FFS is making decisions based on what's best for the club or the fans.  if those things happen to be served in the process of doing what's best for him, that's just bonus.

 

FFS has to maintain a minimum level of activity to keep 52,000 butts in the seats every game and keep the merchandise flying off the shelves, and he does that. but when the club loses 6 million, he's not writing a check from his savings account, nor is he taking a hit in terms of salary or his other surreptitious means of pulling money out of the club.

 

the way money is spent is telling.  it appears to me he'd rather spend 15m on a name player who will shut the fans up and sell some jerseys than spend 5m on improving facilities, scouting, and training tools. why? because unsophisticated fans (and he thinks we're all unsohisticated) will appreciate (and ante up cash for) the flashy changes like name players and a fancy stadium; meanwhile the fundamentals of this club - means of scouting and developing youngsters and role-players, the ability to keep players fit, tools like ProZone - have fallen unbelievably behind the times...

 

that's the difference between NUFC and the better clubs right now - the historical willingness to not invest in areas of the club that don't trigger immediate new avalanches of spending from the fans.  we are way behind in the fundamentals, and no coach wanted to deal with that, or a chairman working at cross-purposes to their long-term success.

 

and when FFS has taken everything he wants from NUFC, he'll leave the club and fans not on the terms that are best for them, but on the terms that are best for him. all we can hope for is that the 2 happen to coincide.

 

Stopped reading at the bit in bold because it is about as incorrect as anyone can be. There is no suggestion and never has been that Fred funds the club out of his own pocket. The suggestion is frankly absurd.

[Guest JamesD]

wow. thanks a lot for that response macbeth.  much appreciated.

[Howaythelads]

 

Blah blah blah

 

 

You spend far more time working on financial posts than football related posts. 

 

You really reckon something like £2m per season on players would make a difference, do you?

 

In any case, there's no limits to the misrepresentation you come up with in response to your frankly pathetic jealousy of people who are more successful than you are.  You're a sad bloke. You really have a chip about people who are better off than you are, don't you mate?

[macbeth]

Same message to Macbeth, people may be disenchanted with Fred due to his errors, but try telling some long standing supporters that the current Board is no better than the Board of the 60's, 70 and 80's.........a type of Board we could easily return to if the current one moved out.

 

I have NEVER said that the board from the 60s, 70s or 80s was good. I wouldn't try and play the "I was there" card the way NE5 does, but I was nonetheless. (Although no that much in the 60s, I'm not THAT old  :winking:)

 

The difference we have in outlook is that I take the optimistic approach. I believe that there are people out there who could run an £80m business better than the current board are doing. We're not talking about running the Lloyds Bank, or BBC, or Boots, or Tesco or the Post Office, with thousands of employees, complicated, wide issues to address. We are talking about an essentially small PLC, with a fairly simple set of problems.

 

That there was no one in the families who owned the club in the 80s who had the business skills to be successful was very sad. We have reached the same point again. There is no evidence that the two execs currently running the business, Freddy Shepherd and Douglas HAll have any idea where they are going.

 

The latest financial results are the culmination of their combined efforts over at least 9 years (15 if NE5's view is taken). The business is close to financial collapse. Assets of £16m, monthly losses of £1m, costs fixed with long term player contracts. A recipe for disaster.

 

Of course you are correct in saying that any replacements may be worse. But why should they be ? There are hundreds of similar sized businesses out there being run successfully. Potentially even appointing a Finance Director may make huge difference. As chairman, Shepherd should be doing that sort of "top to bottom"  review of the club.

 

If the hopeless McKeags could be replaced successfully then I belive the hopeless Halls and Shepherds could also be.

[Howaythelads]

Same message to Macbeth, people may be disenchanted with Fred due to his errors, but try telling some long standing supporters that the current Board is no better than the Board of the 60's, 70 and 80's.........a type of Board we could easily return to if the current one moved out.

 

I have NEVER said that the board from the 60s, 70s or 80s was good. I wouldn't try and play the "I was there" card the way NE5 does, but I was nonetheless. (Although no that much in the 60s, I'm not THAT old  :winking:)

 

The difference we have in outlook is that I take the optimistic approach. I believe that there are people out there who could run an £80m business better than the current board are doing. We're not talking about running the Lloyds Bank, or BBC, or Boots, or Tesco or the Post Office, with thousands of employees, complicated, wide issues to address. We are talking about an essentially small PLC, with a fairly simple set of problems.

 

That there was no one in the families who owned the club in the 80s who had the business skills to be successful was very sad. We have reached the same point again. There is no evidence that the two execs currently running the business, Freddy Shepherd and Douglas HAll have any idea where they are going.

 

The latest financial results are the culmination of their combined efforts over at least 9 years (15 if NE5's view is taken). The business is close to financial collapse. Assets of £16m, monthly losses of £1m, costs fixed with long term player contracts. A recipe for disaster.

 

Of course you are correct in saying that any replacements may be worse. But why should they be ? There are hundreds of similar sized businesses out there being run successfully. Potentially even appointing a Finance Director may make huge difference. As chairman, Shepherd should be doing that sort of "top to bottom"  review of the club.

 

If the hopeless McKeags could be replaced successfully then I belive the hopeless Halls and Shepherds could also be.

 

There may be people out there with a better handle on how to run a typical business, but football is different. I don't think you understand that, mate.

 

Even if a new Board were prepared to back a manager as much as the current Board, it would still all rest on their ability to select the right manager. The fact some other group may not hand out dividends, may try to run the club more in line with your idea of how a business should operate does not mean they will have the ability to select the right manager.

[Guest TampaToon]

but the point of this thread is that some (including oliver, the halls, and the fat man himself) seem to propogate this idea that FFS is putting money into the club:

a) out of his own pocket, rather than out of the clubs income\retained earnings

b) out of the kindness of his heart, rather than to keep the money machine going and nominally fulfilling his fiduciary obligation to the fans.

 

Stopped reading at the bit in bold because it is about as incorrect as anyone can be. There is no suggestion and never has been that Fred funds the club out of his own pocket. The suggestion is frankly absurd.

 

then you probably should've stopped reading at the first post of the thread, because here's what's stated:

 

If I hear that one more time i think I'll puke! Does anyone have any bright ideas about dispelling the popular misconception that the Fat man pours his life savings into the club year upon year like some sort of philanthropist with an overly active civic-pride gland??!!  I'd be happy to back owt with someone else's cash, especially if i knew there was gonna be a stinking big dividend in it for me further down the line!  Someone get Henry Winter on the line....

 

all i was doing is addressing the initial sentiment of the thread...and for what it's worth, i think it's absolutely on target to state that FFS and his henchmen always try to imply that the club's spending is at great personal expense to - and by the grace of - freddy sheperd.  the idea that a company is supposed to reinvest its profits into growing the venture rather than spilling them out in well-over-the-odds dividends seems to be totally lost on the apologists. so while no knowledgeable person has declared that he writes personal checks when it's time to sign players, it has been splattered everywhere that he's somehow doing us a favor by taking the money this club has generated and keeping it in the club.  the implication is that it's his money to do with what he wants, not the club's to be spent in the best interests of NUFC.

 

the implication is the same as saying he's running the company from his own pocket.

[Howaythelads]

but the point of this thread is that some (including oliver, the halls, and the fat man himself) seem to propogate this idea that FFS is putting money into the club:

a) out of his own pocket, rather than out of the clubs income\retained earnings

b) out of the kindness of his heart, rather than to keep the money machine going and nominally fulfilling his fiduciary obligation to the fans.

 

Stopped reading at the bit in bold because it is about as incorrect as anyone can be. There is no suggestion and never has been that Fred funds the club out of his own pocket. The suggestion is frankly absurd.

 

you probably should've stopped reading at the first post of the thread, because here's what's stated:

If I hear that one more time i think I'll puke! Does anyone have any bright ideas about dispelling the popular misconception that the Fat man pours his life savings into the club year upon year like some sort of philanthropist with an overly active civic-pride gland??!!  I'd be happy to back owt with someone else's cash, especially if i knew there was gonna be a stinking big dividend in it for me further down the line!  Someone get Henry Winter on the line....

 

all i was doing is addressing the initial sentiment of the thread...and for what it's worth, i think it's absolutely on target to state that FFS and his henchmen always try to imply that the club's spending is at great personal expense to - and by the grace of - freddy sheperd.  the idea that a company is supposed to reinvest its profits into growing the venture rather than spilling them out in well-over-the-odds dividends seems to be totally lost on the apologists. so while no knowledgeable person has declared that he writes personal cheques when it's time to sign players, it's been splattered everywhere that he's somehow doing us a favor by taking the money this club has generated and keeping it in the club.  the implication is that it's his money to do with what he wants, not the club's to be spent in the best interests of NUFC.

 

the implication is the same as saying he's running the company from his own pocket.

 

 

Even more tripe highlighted for you in bold. As I said, there has never been any suggestion that Fred funds the club from his own pocket. None at all.  You're clearly not in a position to be aware of that fact, christ knows where you're getting this load of shite from.