Wages crisis?

[Guest alex]

No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it.

 

Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something?  He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL

 

Ridiculous.

So? No one on this message board is a professional footballer but I don't see how that stops us from having opinions Newcastle players. We don't run multi-million pound businesses so we can't comment. Ridiculous? You said it.

[Parky]

No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it.

 

Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something?  He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL

 

Ridiculous.

So? No one on this message board is a professional footballer but I don't see how that stops us from having opinions Newcastle players. We don't run multi-million pound businesses so we can't comment. Ridiculous? You said it.

 

Koven and his Amazon analogy...

[Dave]

Love the subtle irony in Parky's 2nd last post.

[Parky]

Love the subtle irony in Parky's 2nd last post.

 

Do you now?

[Slugsy]

No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it.

 

Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something?  He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL

 

Ridiculous.

So? No one on this message board is a professional footballer but I don't see how that stops us from having opinions Newcastle players. We don't run multi-million pound businesses so we can't comment. Ridiculous? You said it.

 

Koven and his Amazon analogy...

 

[Dave]

Soz Parkster.

[Parky]

Perhaps all PL clubs should have a basic wage budget that they all have to stick to. Another way of levelling the playing field perhaps.

[koven]

No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it.

 

Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something?  He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL

 

Ridiculous.

 

Are you a professional footballer?

 

No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc.

 

He is wrong, I run a business of 70 million sterling.

 

a) i don't believe you

b) can you point to where in the thread you posted when I made that comment?  If not, then you weren't in the thread were you?

 

[koven]

No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it.

 

Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something?  He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL

 

Ridiculous.

So? No one on this message board is a professional footballer but I don't see how that stops us from having opinions Newcastle players. We don't run multi-million pound businesses so we can't comment. Ridiculous? You said it.

 

You're a day late mate, someone already said that.

[NE5]

probably. I see success on the pitch as a priority, and realise this is not possible unless you compete with the other clubs aiming for the same thing.

 

You, however, just look at the balance sheet.

 

Question. As ourselves and the mackems were, and are, serious and close rivals, and both have the potential and the fanbase to be consistent trophy winners, and fill a stadium,   8)

 

Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ?

 

Straight question.

 

Don't bother with arse farting around with your agenda, just answer.

 

Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ?

 

 

 

I used to spend too much time on the RTG sunlun board explaining to them how bad Murray was, and how good Sheperd was in comparison. I had the financial results for both clubs, and could argue any fact that any mackem came up with to try and defend Murray. (Well all except one).[/quiote]

 

I know you did, I saw you, although not quite so much as you claim. Anybody with any sense knew that letting 20,000 people in for nothing-half price  would curtail future progress, rather than be the "caring club" they claimed to be and crowed about. I pointed this out to them once or twice. Those who whinge on about our own ticket prices should look at this, but I doubt that they will.

 

They hated me. They hated me for two reasons. The first was that those who were prepared to look beyond me being a wind-up Mag could see that my comments on the financial mess their club was in was perilous. The other thing was that I could show that Shepherd ran NUFC the right way. NUFC invested at the right times, funded the ground redevelopment well, controlled wages, and helped the manager to produce a side that was in the CL.

I loved it, just loved it. My arguments were water tight. (Except for one thing)

 

There is no doubt that up 2003 Shepherd looked to be in control of what he was doing, and most clearly he was better than his nearest competitor in knowledge of how to run a football club.

 

Thank you for admitting that between 1997 and 2003 you were happy with the way the club was run. We won't mention again how I found an article by you in 1998 in the Mag whinging about dividends.

 

I am more than happy to agree that Shepherd pre-2003 was better than Murray.

 

He could hardly be worse, Murray was like our own ex directors. Those who advocate the removal of the current board, or just Shepherd, took take such remarks as further proof that there are a lot worse out there who could take over the club, as I keep pointing out. You also admit, as has also been pointed out, that the clubs current slip in fortunes began around that period which was accelerated by the appointment of Souness, which agreed was a disastrous appointment, but in the real world - especially in football - this happens to the vast majority of clubs in fact, as there are only 2 winners per season, unless you are prepared to accept that european football is fairly successful too, in which case we haven't been losers, but fairly successful.

 

The thing is that I now see all the things I wound the mackems up with being repeated by Shepherd. Panic buying, so Murray backed Reid and paid over the top  for Flo and Marcus Stewart and some others on the deadline day, Shepherd did it with Souness and Owen/Luque/Solano. Neither club coudl afford those deals, but both sets of fans justified it on "we'd have gone down if we hadn't bought". We got lucky, they didn't. (Or their buys were crap). In both cases enticing contracts were offered, that subsequently dragged the clubs down. The spiral downwards began.

 

I don't think that paying 1m for Solano is overspending or a panic buy. Check your facts. Owen is a replacement for Shearer even though he cost a lot, or approx 1-2m more than Shearer, 9 years later to be precise. If he comes back and scores goals nobody will give a toss about the fee, surrounding him with players good enough for him will be the problem. Luque was bought as a direct result of Souness's bad decision to offload Robert and Bellamy, otherwise he would not and should not have been needed. Likewise, Boumsong was a bad choice to replace Woodgate. The total price here is approx 35-37m quid for those 3 players. plus Faye. I think the 16-17m paid for Owen is by far a much safer buy than Luque and Boumsong, as I believe somewhere that somebody has said that this "missing" 17m quid was the transfer "overspend". The manager chose those players, and the chairman backed him.

 

Funny, but I don't blame either Shepherd or Murray for backing their managers, the fact Murray survived at the mackems for so long without doing it is amazing and it is notable he got away with it only until they saw how much we had improved by doing so, that caught up with him. In my view it is the manager's fault for choosing the wrong players rather than the chairman not backing their appointments. If Boumsong had been a suitable replacement for Woodgate, and Luque likewise for Robert and Bellamy, we would still have been knocking on the door of the Champions League and may even have won a trophy, so nobody would be giving a toss about the fees.

 

If you don't compete with the other big clubs you will never have a chance of matching them, that is without question.

 

It is interesting that some people slate the board for not buying Miguel for instance, rather than Carr. Is this not the same principle as choosing to back the manager when he gets it wrong, or are people simply moving the goalposts depending on how successful the player is ?

 

I am happy to say Shepherd is better than Murray, but it was like the argument that Shola was better than Kevin Kyle. A very parochial argument that fires up locals but just makes outsiders smile condescendingly at us.

 

 

Maybe he is. But stooping to buying players like Kevin Kyle is what happens when you stop buying good players to show ambition and keep the ones you have. He is the quality of player we have replaced the likes of Beardsley and Waddle with, when we also had a shit board.

 

 

[NE5]

 

What is the obsession with the summer of 2003?

 

Subsequent disastrous non-qualification for Champions League.

 

Obviously.

 

Typical ignorance of the big picture from you. Troll. As usual.

 

Quite amazing that some people who make football posts are labelled "trolls", by the likes of toonstaylor  mackems.gif , on the basis that their opinion is different, being factually based, when the likes of Mandiarse gets away with his usual rubbish like this, including when he dished the dirt on the club to a London scumbag journo who shows how much he despises NUFC on a regular basis.

 

 

[NE5]

Re: the summer of 2003. We only signed Bowyer but the board took a chance by signing Woodgate in the January. It paid off and we got into the Champions League but it's possible much of the summer budget went on taking that chance. I think the board may also have been waiting to see if we got through the Champions League qualifying stage before signing another player. With hindsight, that looks like a mistake but another big money signing wouldn't have guarenteed us getting through and if we didn't we might have been really struggling financially. I'm not one to hold back on criticising Shepherd et al when I see fit but the players at Robson's disposal should have been more than enough to get past Partizan Belgrade and, frankly, we bottled it in the home leg.

 

I remember the general feeling, all through that summer, that the squad badly needed freshening. Something to lift it. Yes, Shepherd did say that team-strengthening would only follow CL qualification. And no, a big-money signing would have guaranteed nothing. But what did an £8.5 million payout to shareholders get us?

 

This was our last chance to grab a seat at the top table and we fluffed it. The club's biggest turning-point in the last ten years.

 

Alex has it spot on and unsurprisingly, you don't. The players bottled that game.

 

If the club had spent 8m quid on another player, such as Boumsong or Luque, people like you would then have criticised them for spending money on a shit player. Like your hero who scored 2 league goals in 1997-98, who oddly disappeared up his arse for almost the whole season, and you wax lyrical about him.

 

 

[Teasy]

Parker on £60,000, Dyer on £80,000, Owen on £115,000, why do some people believe this silly paper talk?

[NE5]

Parker on £60,000, Dyer on £80,000, Owen on £115,000, why do some people believe this silly paper talk?

 

or 500 quid on Luque

 

 

[Unlucky Luque]

Parker on £60,000, Dyer on £80,000, Owen on £115,000, why do some people believe this silly paper talk?

 

check FM if u dont believe...

[macbeth]

probably. I see success on the pitch as a priority, and realise this is not possible unless you compete with the other clubs aiming for the same thing.

 

You, however, just look at the balance sheet.

 

Question. As ourselves and the mackems were, and are, serious and close rivals, and both have the potential and the fanbase to be consistent trophy winners, and fill a stadium,  8)

 

Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ?

 

Straight question.

 

Don't bother with arse farting around with your agenda, just answer.

 

Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ?

 

 

 

I used to spend too much time on the RTG sunlun board explaining to them how bad Murray was, and how good Sheperd was in comparison. I had the financial results for both clubs, and could argue any fact that any mackem came up with to try and defend Murray. (Well all except one).[/quiote]

 

I know you did, I saw you, although not quite so much as you claim. Anybody with any sense knew that letting 20,000 people in for nothing-half price  would curtail future progress, rather than be the "caring club" they claimed to be and crowed about. I pointed this out to them once or twice. Those who whinge on about our own ticket prices should look at this, but I doubt that they will.

 

They hated me. They hated me for two reasons. The first was that those who were prepared to look beyond me being a wind-up Mag could see that my comments on the financial mess their club was in was perilous. The other thing was that I could show that Shepherd ran NUFC the right way. NUFC invested at the right times, funded the ground redevelopment well, controlled wages, and helped the manager to produce a side that was in the CL.

I loved it, just loved it. My arguments were water tight. (Except for one thing)

 

There is no doubt that up 2003 Shepherd looked to be in control of what he was doing, and most clearly he was better than his nearest competitor in knowledge of how to run a football club.

 

Thank you for admitting that between 1997 and 2003 you were happy with the way the club was run. We won't mention again how I found an article by you in 1998 in the Mag whinging about dividends.

 

That would be the "one thing" highlighted above. When a mackem came back and suggested that our board were bleeding our club of money I really had no answer 

 

I am more than happy to agree that Shepherd pre-2003 was better than Murray.

 

He could hardly be worse, Murray was like our own ex directors. Those who advocate the removal of the current board, or just Shepherd, took take such remarks as further proof that there are a lot worse out there who could take over the club, as I keep pointing out. You also admit, as has also been pointed out, that the clubs current slip in fortunes began around that period which was accelerated by the appointment of Souness, which agreed was a disastrous appointment, but in the real world - especially in football - this happens to the vast majority of clubs in fact, as there are only 2 winners per season, unless you are prepared to accept that european football is fairly successful too, in which case we haven't been losers, but fairly successful.

 

You so live in the past. You wish to compare our team, and our board witht he worst examples you can think of. So the board today is better than Murray who you fel "could hardly be worse". It would be like me suggesting Luque is better than Fereday, or Carr is better than Bruce Halliday. We should be aiming higher. I love th e way you just dismiss the appointment of Souness by Shepherd as just one of those things that happens. Of all the thingsa chairman has to do the key one, th eonly one that really really matters is to get teh correct first team manager in place. To get that decision so badly wrong, and for you to just shruig and say "this happens" just beggars belief. If he had gambled on a seemingly bright young manager and got it wrong, or gambled on a relatively unknown foriegn coach and got it wrong, or gambled on a manager who had seemed to have been successful elsewhere and got it wrong, then in all these case it could have been understandable. He didn't though. He used all his wide football knowledge, all the things he knows form having doen the job for years, all those contacts throughout the game and appointed Souness. You shrug. The rest of us wonder what the chairman gets his £10,000 per week pay for.

Our fairly successful side, is now steeped in mid-table mediocrity. In four years we drop from CL qualification, to scrambling for an Intertoto place. The players have changed, the managers have changed, the only constant is the chairman.

 

The thing is that I now see all the things I wound the mackems up with being repeated by Shepherd. Panic buying, so Murray backed Reid and paid over the top  for Flo and Marcus Stewart and some others on the deadline day, Shepherd did it with Souness and Owen/Luque/Solano. Neither club coudl afford those deals, but both sets of fans justified it on "we'd have gone down if we hadn't bought". We got lucky, they didn't. (Or their buys were crap). In both cases enticing contracts were offered, that subsequently dragged the clubs down. The spiral downwards began.

 

I don't think that paying 1m for Solano is overspending or a panic buy. Check your facts. Owen is a replacement for Shearer even though he cost a lot, or approx 1-2m more than Shearer, 9 years later to be precise. If he comes back and scores goals nobody will give a toss about the fee, surrounding him with players good enough for him will be the problem. Luque was bought as a direct result of Souness's bad decision to offload Robert and Bellamy, otherwise he would not and should not have been needed. Likewise, Boumsong was a bad choice to replace Woodgate. The total price here is approx 35-37m quid for those 3 players. plus Faye. I think the 16-17m paid for Owen is by far a much safer buy than Luque and Boumsong, as I believe somewhere that somebody has said that this "missing" 17m quid was the transfer "overspend". The manager chose those players, and the chairman backed him.

I understand that Owen is the Shearer replacement. The big question that it raises though is why did the expense cause such a massive dent in the club's accounts ? Didn't anybody spot that Shearer was getting older? Didn't anyone think to actually start saving for the day his body finally gave in? The club did have the money available to them. Over the previous 3 years over £16m was gven away to shareholders. The club had stored money away for a Shearer replacement but the colapse of Cameron Hall meant it was more important for the money to go toi the Halls than in to buying a replacement for Shearer. My choice would have been to spend the money on Owen, you seem to believe Douglas Hall deserves it more. I accept we will never agree on this.

 

Funny, but I don't blame either Shepherd or Murray for backing their managers, the fact Murray survived at the mackems for so long without doing it is amazing and it is notable he got away with it only until they saw how much we had improved by doing so, that caught up with him. In my view it is the manager's fault for choosing the wrong players rather than the chairman not backing their appointments. If Boumsong had been a suitable replacement for Woodgate, and Luque likewise for Robert and Bellamy, we would still have been knocking on the door of the Champions League and may even have won a trophy, so nobody would be giving a toss about the fees.

 

What role do you actually see the chairman doign then?? Does he have any responsibility for the way things turn out? He just says to the manager, "Yes we'll buy him, I know we cannot afford him, but if you want him then that's okay". Madness. Wouldn't it be better to  have said "this is how much we can afford, you can have what ever you want within what this club can afford". Shepherd seems to be d"oign that today, or the bank is anyway.

 

If you don't compete with the other big clubs you will never have a chance of matching them, that is without question.

 

It is interesting that some people slate the board for not buying Miguel for instance, rather than Carr. Is this not the same principle as choosing to back the manager when he gets it wrong, or are people simply moving the goalposts depending on how successful the player is ?

 

I am happy to say Shepherd is better than Murray, but it was like the argument that Shola was better than Kevin Kyle. A very parochial argument that fires up locals but just makes outsiders smile condescendingly at us.

 

 

Maybe he is. But stooping to buying players like Kevin Kyle is what happens when you stop buying good players to show ambition and keep the ones you have. He is the quality of player we have replaced the likes of Beardsley and Waddle with, when we also had a s*** board.

 

And how do you view our last two signings of Sibierski and Bernard? 

 

 

[NE5]

 

just to remind you. The current board found the club facing real bankruptcy, and saved the club. Borne out of decades of running the club just like the mackems. That should have been your response, but I suppose you stopped short of theat because you simply can't give any credit for anything .

 

I constantly find it amusing when people like you compare the running of a football club to be the same as a high street business when it suits you ie being one of the most relatively successful clubs in its field isn't enough for you, then complain about normal business practice such as paying dividends.

 

As I have said before, slate them whatever they do.

 

What we really want is a board who appoint the perfect manager every time, spend no money, and win all the trophies at no cost, just like all the other clubs all over the country with competent boards of directors do.

 

 

I would venture to suggest - that is if it is OK to give the club any credit for anything - that they were only too aware of Shearer getting older, unless he pretended he was still 21  mackems.gif - and bought Owen, one of the few quality and worthy replacements - when he became available, rather than be accused by people like you of "not planning". Oh, wait a moment, you will accuse them of that anyway .....

 

I am pleased you think I am living in the past and "compare the board with the worst examples I can find". I will allow you and other people, in your own time, to reflect that you are comparing the board to the "best that you can find".

 

For my part, I am simply stating a FACT that the club has moved forward under the current board, achieved more than the previous 30 year plus, and will leave behind an altogether far better club than the one they found.

 

Have ALL our signings under this board been free transfers or cheap signings like Sibierski and Bernard ? Because as you will very well know, most of our signings under the previous regime of over 30 years was, especially the ones who were brought to replace local lads and England players who saw no future at the club.

 

 

 

[Baggio]

Instead of bringing up the same old tired comparison of our current board compared to the old one why don't we just stick to the topic.

 

The wage bill is far to high and someone needs to get it back under control, shocking really when you consider our squad has virtually no depth and we only have a handful of good players.

[NE5]

Instead of bringing up the same old tired comparison of our current board compared to the old one why don't we just stick to the topic.

 

The wage bill is far to high and someone needs to get it back under control, shocking really when you consider our squad has virtually no depth and we only have a handful of good players.

 

Shame you are unable to appreciate that the club HAS in fact, moved forward a lot under the present board.

 

As I said, what we really want, is someone who appoints the right manager every time, and has a successful "plan" every time, buys the right player every time, and doesn't spend any money to do it, just like every other club everywhere   mackems.gif

 

Instead of bringing up the same old tired whinging on

[Baggio]

Instead of bringing up the same old tired comparison of our current board compared to the old one why don't we just stick to the topic.

 

The wage bill is far to high and someone needs to get it back under control, shocking really when you consider our squad has virtually no depth and we only have a handful of good players.

 

Shame you are unable to appreciate that the club HAS in fact, moved forward a lot under the present board.

 

As I said, what we really want, is someone who appoints the right manager every time, and has a successful "plan" every time, buys the right player every time, and doesn't spend any money to do it, just like every other club everywhere   mackems.gif

 

Instead of bringing up the same old tired whinging on like a big tart

 

 

 

Shame you can't deal with the topic at hand.

 

SO what is your opinion on the wage bill being far too high?

 

Also, what is your opinion on the club losing a reported £1 million a month?

[Howaythelads]

Again, can we take issues between individual posters to PM please?

 

Cheers.

 

I have no personal issues with the member who prompted your comment, though I doubt he'll take action on your comment. His main goal on this forum is to ignore the main point of the majority of posts by taking any single sentence from a post that will allow him to potentially create an argument. I know that you know that.

 

Cheers

 

[Howaythelads]

 

 

Let me get this straight.

 

Despite you constantly slagging the club off for spending money and increasing the wage bill you're saying this very course of action would have been ok in summer 2003, it's suddenly ok to ignore the fact the club strengthened the squad by signing 3 players earlier in 2003, 2 of them England squad players? Is that what you're saying, despite the ~£43m deficit over the previous 32 months and the huge increase in playing staff as a result of doing that? I just want to be clear on what you're saying, keeping in mind that PLC's pay dividends and that the club (company) will have money allocated to the manager for transfers and money allocated for all other parts of running the business, including I assume predicted or expected dividends to shareholders.

If the club had £4m to spend on dividends, and £4.5m to spend on buying shres back from the Hall family then the implication is that they had a spare £8.5m to spend. We will never agree on the dividends. I think bleeding money out of a loss making business is immoral and just plain wrong, and is rewarding incompetence. You don't. The £4.5m used by the club to buy back its own shares, but only from the major shareholder was just plain wrong. No one else was made the offer, it was clearly money the business could not afford to spend, yet they still did it. This, even more than the dividends while losing money, showed that the club was being used to make money purely for the Hall family.

Of course I know of the other signings. Of couse that is relevent. My whole argument is that if there was money available to should be spent on the team. This will ALWAYS be my priority. Obviously other things generate income and need money spent on them. So ground redevelopment, extended club shop, Academy. These are all for the good of the club. They are all there to generate money for the team. That summer the board decided that the key investment for the club was not in anything that moved the club forward.

 

 

It's no good saying they should have spent that £8.5m on a player, that money was for dividends and there was money allocated for transfers to bring in Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer (fees and/or wages). If this other £8.5m had gone on a player and that player had turned out to be a Boumsong you'd be slagging them off now for spending that £8.5m on this player and for increasing the wage bill accordingly. The club can't win with the likes of you.

 

Okay so all manager's make mistakes in their purchases, so the answer with what to do with the club money is to give it to the shareholders instead??  If that £8.5m given the Hall and Shpeherd pension funds had been given to Rangers for Boumsong instead then we'd now be £8.5m better off. Would you prefer Roeder to now have £8.5m to spend or  Douglas Hall  to have it ?

 

 

What is the obsession with the summer of 2003? What's wrong with signing 3 players earlier in 2003 rather than 1 in January and 2 more in July? Had that happened what would be your argument? Well I think you'd be saying the same, that they should have spent that £8.5m in the summer of 2003 on a player. Hence, your argument is nothing to do with the club not signing a player in summer 2003, it's to do with the club paying dividends, which it's been pretty much established is something you've been banging on about for years. I detect massive envy in you mate.

 

We bought Woodgate for 9m and Ambrose for 1m in the January, and brought in Bowyer for a free in the summer. At the time, and for the second year running, we were told the purchase of Woodgate (Jenas the previous year) was financed from the extra money made availabe by the unbudgetted successes in the CL that year. This was again a superb example of the correct way to run things. A good plan, then when there was suddenly an upturn the upturn was used to invest in the squad. It could be argued that all that really happened was that the summer 2003 transfer budget was spent early, and that the CL money was given to Douglas Hall. When the fruits of playing in the CL came the club did not take the long term view of investing in the squad, to "guarantee" future success, it instead took the short term financial gain and blew it.

And yes I am totally envious of those teams who were our competitors to be int he top 4 who kept their eye on the ball.

 

What's been shown without a shadow of doubt in these latest exchanges is your clear double standards on this issue.

 

I think I'm pretty straightforward. All the money that I put into the club I'd like to see invested in the club, not wasted, not given away to pension funds, just improving the team.

 

Aside from saying that a PLC pays dividends I've never made my position on dividends a matter of record on the forum, so thanks for making my mind up for me and posting my opinion accordiing to what's in your head. You appear to have made up a lot of stuff that you think is my opinion in your post above, telling me what I'm thinking. That's very clever of you, mate. I wonder how you do that.

 

Still waiting for you to explain your double standards, by the way.

 

The question I'm asking sn't about dividends as you well know. I won't repeat it because you know what I'm asking, you're just frantically avoiding it.

[macbeth]

Aside from saying that a PLC pays dividends I've never made my position on dividends a matter of record on the forum, so thanks for making my mind up for me and posting my opinion accordiing to what's in your head. You appear to have made up a lot of stuff that you think is my opinion in your post above, telling me what I'm thinking. That's very clever of you, mate. I wonder how you do that.

 

Still waiting for you to explain your double standards, by the way.

 

The question I'm asking sn't about dividends as you well know. I won't repeat it because you know what I'm asking, you're just frantically avoiding it.

 

I really am sorry if I seem to have put words into your mouth. I try not to. NE5 does it with me all the time and I hate it, so sincere apologies if I slipped to his level.

 

I will answer anything you want me to. The question you seem to feel I know, I'm sorry but I genuinely don't.

 

If you are asking anything about dividends then my position is that they are generally wrong, and they are particualrly wrong in the case of NUFC. The people who run the club should make thier profit on their investment through improving the business and therefore increasing the share price. The current board have rewarded their ability to make a loss of £23m by giving themselves dividends of £35m. Dividends on profits is understandable, nearly justifiable. Divis on incomepetence is taking the pis*, or robbery.

[NE5]

Aside from saying that a PLC pays dividends I've never made my position on dividends a matter of record on the forum, so thanks for making my mind up for me and posting my opinion accordiing to what's in your head. You appear to have made up a lot of stuff that you think is my opinion in your post above, telling me what I'm thinking. That's very clever of you, mate. I wonder how you do that.

 

Still waiting for you to explain your double standards, by the way.

 

The question I'm asking sn't about dividends as you well know. I won't repeat it because you know what I'm asking, you're just frantically avoiding it.

 

I really am sorry if I seem to have put words into your mouth. I try not to. NE5 does it with me all the time and I hate it, so sincere apologies if I slipped to his level.

 

I will answer anything you want me to. The question you seem to feel I know, I'm sorry but I genuinely don't.

 

If you are asking anything about dividends then my position is that they are generally wrong, and they are particualrly wrong in the case of NUFC. The people who run the club should make thier profit on their investment through improving the business and therefore increasing the share price. The current board have rewarded their ability to make a loss of £23m by giving themselves dividends of £35m. Dividends on profits is understandable, nearly justifiable. Divis on incomepetence is taking the pis*, or robbery.

 

I don't believe I have put any words into your mouth. You have said you were happy with the club until 2003 in this very thread. You wrote an article for the mag, and I quoted part of it word for word.

 

 

[madras]

Aside from saying that a PLC pays dividends I've never made my position on dividends a matter of record on the forum, so thanks for making my mind up for me and posting my opinion accordiing to what's in your head. You appear to have made up a lot of stuff that you think is my opinion in your post above, telling me what I'm thinking. That's very clever of you, mate. I wonder how you do that.

 

Still waiting for you to explain your double standards, by the way.

 

The question I'm asking sn't about dividends as you well know. I won't repeat it because you know what I'm asking, you're just frantically avoiding it.

 

I really am sorry if I seem to have put words into your mouth. I try not to. NE5 does it with me all the time and I hate it, so sincere apologies if I slipped to his level.

 

I will answer anything you want me to. The question you seem to feel I know, I'm sorry but I genuinely don't.

 

If you are asking anything about dividends then my position is that they are generally wrong, and they are particualrly wrong in the case of NUFC. The people who run the club should make thier profit on their investment through improving the business and therefore increasing the share price. The current board have rewarded their ability to make a loss of £23m by giving themselves dividends of £35m. Dividends on profits is understandable, nearly justifiable. Divis on incomepetence is taking the pis*, or robbery.

on the other hand,a reason for a company giving dividends when there appears to be no growth is to stop people selling the shares and can give a bit stability to the share price.(shoots the ideas of conspracy theorists who think shepherd is deliberatly trying to lower the share price).

 

the dividend was necessary,but shepherd /hall could have left theirs at the club.