Cajun Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Link Anyone know anything about him? Give him a call. Steve Walton 07775 544058* [email protected] "Alright Steve, you any good?" "yeah" "fantastic, bye" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbo Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Wasn't Fred both Chairman and Chief Executive before? Wasn't Freddy Fletcher the chief executive? He left around christmas and this is just his replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Anyone think this a typical Shepherd appointment? FFS: Here Stevie lad, when's that audit due? SW: Which audits that Fred? The one where you ask me to ignore the fact that the Club have paid your Brother another few million for that shed on the Quayside? FFS: Nah, that ones next month man isn't it? SW: Aaaaah, a kna man, the one where I 'accidently miss' the fact that you've mugged off the Geordie public for the last 12 months, paid ya sell a fortune and ye finances have got more holes than the 2005/06 Mackem back four? FFS: Errrrrrr, aye? SW: Listen Fred, I've been meaning to talk to ye aboot the next audit. FFS: Oh aye? SW: Aye well, it's not me deeing it. I'm sending a young lad from the office round. He's keen as mustard, shit hot and has just stitched up 3 Blue Chip outfits. You'll be in good hands, divvint worry. FFS: Whats it ganna cost me Stevie lad, I'm nee mug, I naa what your saying. SW: Well Fred, who better to cook the books than the Head Chef himself? FFS: Whatever anyone says Stevie, I always back me Finance lads with hard cash. Yerr in. SW: Reet, see you on Monday. I'll be in the empty office with 'Bruce Shepherd - Logistics Officer' on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Agreed. Hopefully it'll mean he'll have less influence over the club. Hopefully certain people will stop blaming him for stuff that has nowt to do with him, like the manager signing players that turn out to be bad buys, for example. I doubt it somehow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Step in the right direction definitely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Step in the right direction definitely. Ultimately if we don't win the league Fred will still get it in the neck from the serial moaners for anything the bloke gets wrong. Same as they blame him for everything the manager and players get wrong. That's my prediction, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Step in the right direction definitely. like you know anything about the bloke he's only about one thing - money. He's a money man, end of. Even worse, he knows where the money is to be had in football - the gullible fans the naivity on here never ceases to amaze Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 i often think a money man is the best person to run a business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 i often think a money man is the best person to run a business. as opposed to a football club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Agreed. Hopefully it'll mean he'll have less influence over the club. Aye, cos that always happens when the chairman hand-picks his Chief Exec. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Agreed. Hopefully it'll mean he'll have less influence over the club. Aye, cos that always happens when the chairman hand-picks his Chief Exec. True. Doubt it'll make any difference, given who appointed him, but I did say "hopefully". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Agreed. Hopefully it'll mean he'll have less influence over the club. Aye, cos that always happens when the chairman hand-picks his Chief Exec. True. Doubt it'll make any difference, given who appointed him, but I did say "hopefully". Aye, mate, i know. It's be nice to imagine. Fat Lad is many things, but (business) daft he is not. He'd not appoint a Chief Exec who would actually challenge or disobey him. I don't think thats the executive culture at SJP! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Step in the right direction definitely. like you know anything about the bloke he's only about one thing - money. He's a money man, end of. Even worse, he knows where the money is to be had in football - the gullible fans the naivity on here never ceases to amaze Is this you deliberately misrepresenting my post, in some kind of revenge gesture, because that's what I did to yours yesterday? I'm happy to play that game if you want. Did I say I knew anything about him? My comment was about the appointment of someone, other than Fred, to the post of CEO, which is a good thing. As has been pointed out above, anyone with even the slightest bit of business knowledge would be aware that it is highly unusual in a company of NUFC's size for the position of Chairman of the Board and CEO to be held by the same person. It's highly unusual because it's widely considered to be "dodgy as fuck" (that's a technical term, by the way), as one is supposed to be the check on the activities of the other. The fact that NUFC has had Fred in both roles for quite a while now is one of a number of reasons why investors have been reticent to invest in the club and the fact that the situation has now been rectified is therefore a step in the right direction. You're right, he is a money man, although the fact that he has risen to a relatively senior position at Barclay's suggests that he should be quite a good money man to have on board. Personally, I'd have preferred to have had a CEO with more of a business, rather than finance, background, and I'm a little worried that this guy has been brought in to seek further debt-based funding, as that appears to be his area of expertise. But - as HTL can confirm - I've been saying for that Fred should bring some people with different experience and knowledge into the club at a senior level for ages and I've criticised him for not doing so. So, I'm not going to be petty enough not come out and support it, now that he has. However, I'd like to see a couple of additional appointments follow on from this because it isn't enough on its own. Sorry Vic, but the only naivety I can see here is from you in suggesting that the money in football would come from anywhere other than from the fans. It all comes either directly or indirectly from the pockets of the fans, isn't that obvious? Also, it's not always about squeezing more money from the long-suffering punters, sometimes - and I think this is particularly the case with NUFC - it's about using the money that you already get from them, better. This is where I think Fred is particularly poor, we're always up there with the big-boys when it comes to income, but that rarely, in fact never, gets reflected by the performance on the pitch. This proves that we spend our money in a less effective way than many other clubs, every pound we spend achieves less than a pound spent by Arsenal, for example. A larger and better senior management team would, in my opinion, not only generate more income, but also improve the effectiveness of the ways in which the club spends the money it already gets. Hopefully this appointment is the first step in doing that, or you could say: A step in the right direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Bent? Surely not!!! Not at NUFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Bent? Surely not!!! Not at NUFC. I know. It's a massive leap of deduction I made there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Get some sleep then. Dodgy or not, I don't know, and if it was then dodgy in the favour of whom, I don't know. Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. Like I say, he may have been brought in to generate additional funding through debt, which I wouldn't support given our current position, or alternatively he may have been brought in to restructure our debt in a way that is beneficial to the club, which I would support, or maybe it's neither, which I wouldn't understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. you trust FF's interview skills Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. you trust FF's interview skills No probably not which is why I gave it tentative approval and described it as "a step in the right direction". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Get some sleep then. Dodgy or not, I don't know, and if it was then dodgy in the favour of whom, I don't know. Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. Like I say, he may have been brought in to generate additional funding through debt, which I wouldn't support given our current position, or alternatively he may have been brought in to restructure our debt in a way that is beneficial to the club, which I would support, or maybe it's neither, which I wouldn't understand. Or the person who chairs that company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. you trust FF's interview skills No probably not which is why I gave it tentative approval and described it as "a step in the right direction". beep beep beep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well done, Fred. Agreed. Hopefully it'll mean he'll have less influence over the club. Aye, cos that always happens when the chairman hand-picks his Chief Exec. CEOs have more power than chairmen when running a normal business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Wasn't Fred both Chairman and Chief Executive before? Wasn't Freddy Fletcher the chief executive? He left around christmas and this is just his replacement. Fletcher left a few years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. you trust FF's interview skills No probably not which is why I gave it tentative approval and described it as "a step in the right direction". beep beep beep Not so much beep, beep, beep, as: ckkrkrkrkaaakakkkrrrkrkk crrararararkkkkk karkkakrakkrarkkckc!!! which is you grinding the fuck out of your gears in a vain attempt to manoeuvre the situation and make it appear to be in your favour. Sorry, but it ain't gonna work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't read most of that uber post sorry, I've been up 48 hrs. suffice to say, do you think Barclays were in the habit of putting the interests of their customers first? Or were they in the habit of sweating a perfect monopoly position? In pursuant of their record profits for their shareholders? He was our banker and the Barclays man with 'football knowledge'. This move is bent as a 9 bob note Get some sleep then. Dodgy or not, I don't know, and if it was then dodgy in the favour of whom, I don't know. Things like this happen all the time though and it usually benefits the company taking the person. Like I say, he may have been brought in to generate additional funding through debt, which I wouldn't support given our current position, or alternatively he may have been brought in to restructure our debt in a way that is beneficial to the club, which I would support, or maybe it's neither, which I wouldn't understand. Or the person who chairs that company. What are you suggesting? 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