Wages crisis?

[macbeth]

 

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 .

 

So Freddie Shepherd and Douglas Halld saved the club from the McKeags ?

 

Even in 1999 the charman was Fletcher. Shepherd was one of 3 non-executive directors. Hall the same.  This is from the club accoutns for that year. You may know better, but as far as the club was concerned of the 7 directors Hall and Shepherd were only minor players.

 

Freddie Fletcher has been Chief Executive from 1992.

 

This is again from the club accounts.

 

Presumable you see the 1991 share issue as being more relevant. This was when John Hall was on the board. No mention of either Douglas Hall or Freddie Shepherd in the list of the owners of 5.5m of the 8m shares then in circulation.

 

Maybe Shepherd was just sitting in the background not saying 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 where did I do that  ??   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.

 

I think you'll find that normal business practice is to pay dividends on profit.

 

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".

No. We just want to see some progress. You measure the progress from the worst case you can find. We all measure the progress from 10 years gao, or 4 years ago.

 

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.

 

Under Douglas Hall, Alison Hall, Freddie Shepherd and Bruce Shepherd ? Really ?? She joined on 4th February 2004. You see an improvement since then ?? Really ? Or mnaybe on 24th July 2002 when Bruce was apoointed. Really an improvement ?? What about Freddie Shepherd as chairman from 1997? An improvement ?? Which of them, what improvement ??

 

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.

 

You raised the issue of signings. I just commented on the last two. Shearer was a local lad. He retired and the person who has filled his role is Sibierski. Unfair, yes, but you started it

 

 

[Parky]

I'm not sure where I stand on then using the dividends to buy more shares.....Not even sure if that is strictly legal or good practice at the very least. In one way value is given back to the share price, in another way FS and the Halls are buying up the club using the clubs money....As I say I'm not really sure if the club is winning or losing on this slight of hand.

[macbeth]

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.

 

the only people sellign shares were the Halls anyway ??

 

whay was the dividned necessary, apart from to prop up the failing Cameron HAll business ?

[Parky]

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.

 

the only people sellign shares were the Halls anyway ??

 

whay was the dividned necessary, apart from to prop up the failing Cameron HAll business ?

 

Dividends without operating profits is unheard of actually......

[madras]

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.

 

the only people sellign shares were the Halls anyway ??

 

whay was the dividned necessary, apart from to prop up the failing Cameron HAll business ?

to keep the other 40% (non hall/shepherd shareholding) from deserting.

[Parky]

Who in their right mind would buy shares in a football club anyway?

[madras]

Who in their right mind would buy shares in a football club anyway?

the glazers

[OzzieMandias]

when he dished the dirt on the club to a London scumbag journo

 

You are confusing me with Freddie Shepherd and Douglas Hall.

[Parky]

Who in their right mind would buy shares in a football club anyway?

the glazers

 

You couldn't be more wrong actually.

[macbeth]

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.

 

the only people sellign shares were the Halls anyway ??

 

whay was the dividned necessary, apart from to prop up the failing Cameron HAll business ?

 

Dividends without operating profits is unheard of actually......

 

NUFC

2001 Op loss 5m, dividends paid 4.4m

2005 op loss 9m, dividends 3.9m

 

If interest is included then there are more

[Parky]

Who in their right mind would buy shares in a football club anyway?

the glazers

 

Although partly using their funds, the Glazers have borrowed against the clubs assets and future earnings to buy the club....Basically this kind of thing should be illegal. Consequently ManU are between £500m-£700m in debt depending on who you beleive.

[NE5]

when he dished the dirt on the club to a London scumbag journo

 

You are confusing me with Freddie Shepherd and Douglas Hall.

 

sorry, I missed the word "deliberately"

 

 

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

If you say so.....

 

Here we go again, my last attempt at getting a proper reply from you on this subject.

 

Dividends

I'm not really interested in dividends that much, although I hadn't reailsed they'd taken £35m in dividends in the last 3.5 years. I suppose that's the price of being a PLC though. Wouldn't it be great if the club wasn't a PLC, although I would wonder why the club didn't spend copious amounts of cash on players when previous people ran the club, assuming they weren't at that time paying dividends. Don't spend any time on that paragraph though, as I said, I'm not that interested having accepted a PLC plans into it's budget the paying of dividends. You can disagree if you like but imo successive managers have been adequately backed financially to produce a successful team irrespective of the money that has gone out in dividends.

 

Football

We were talking about wages and the concept of bringing in players in summer 2003, at which point you made the assertion (or clear implication at least) that the club missed an opportunity by not bringing in more players during summer 2003.  We weren't talking about whether £8.5m spent on dividends would have been better spent on another player. I actually have no doubt you know what we were talking about. I'm asking you why you think it a good idea to increase the wage bill in summer 2003 by bringing in yet more players despite the documented fact the club had already strengthened the squad by bringing in 3 players in 2003. I'm asking you why you advocate spending yet more money over the £43m that had already been spent in those previous 32 months given how you try to put across an idea you believe in prudence, regularly using a lack of prudence by the Board as a stick with which to beat them.

 

Try not to refer once again to how much better it would have been had that £8.5m been spend on a player. That's not the answer and also don't tell me that I'd prefer the club paid dividends than bought players, that's the type of argumentative s**** I expect from mandiarse and isn't what I expect from you.

[OzzieMandias]

the type of argumentative shite I expect from mandiarse

 

It's great that HTL never slags off other posters.

[Howaythelads]

the type of argumentative s**** I expect from mandiarse

 

It's great that HTL never slags off other posters.

 

 

Who said that, certainly wasn't me.

 

For the sake of clarity. I've never denied I become involved in "heated" discussion with some people, but what I've said is that personal abuse isn't often started by me. I think this is generally part and parcel of a football forum and it's not me who complains about it either. Your regular contribution of ignoring the main thrust of a post while selecting 1 comment in an attempt to take things out of context and provoke an argument is well known on here. It's why you're considered by many to be a WUM. You should be pleased really, as you've worked hard to earn this reputation and no doubt think it's hilarious to snipe in thread after thread.

 

Now let's try again to get back to football, although it's becoming more difficult as this thread goes on.

 

We can start by asking you to have another crack at making a proper post in this thread on the subject being discussed.

 

Tell me why, after a deficit of ~£43m and a huge increase in the size of the first team squad bolstered by 3 players already signed earlier in 2003, it was still essential the club bring in more players during the summer of 2003? You can also tell me why, in the summer of 2003, the principle of spending of money the club didn't have for transfers was ok and the increase in wages to turnover ratio was ok, but it's not ok a few years later and that doing this kind of thing actually shows the board is incompetent.

 

I'm all for debate, if you can give me some valid reasons for the double standard I'm describing here (and without hindsight, nobody knew the players would bottle the CL qualifier, as Alex has pointed out earlier) I'm all for reading entire posts and responding with integrity, honesty and also without deliberately taking your comment out of context.

[OzzieMandias]

Tell me why, after a deficit of ~£43m and a huge increase in the size of the first team squad bolstered by 3 players already signed earlier in 2003, it was still essential the club bring in more players during the summer of 2003?

 

The Partizan game was one of the most important of the decade. It was absolutely essential that we win it and bag the resulting CL cash if we were to carry on progressing as a club.

 

Meanwhile, the season just finished had been marked by a constant feeling that we were over-achieving, doing better than we should have – until the 2-6 to Manchester United, and the sense that a young, inexperienced squad had been "found out".

 

You can try to pretend that signings in the January window somehow make up for the lack of them that summer, but the fact was that by the end of the season the squad was seriously reduced in confidence. It needed some reinforcement, something to lift the spirits. Instead we got only the divisive signing of Lee Bowyer on the cheap.

 

You can also tell me why, in the summer of 2003, the principle of spending of money the club didn't have for transfers was ok and the increase in wages to turnover ratio was ok, but it's not ok a few years later and that doing this kind of thing actually shows the board is incompetent.

 

There are times when it makes sense to speculate to accumulate, and times when it does not. I'd argue that the summer of 2003 was an example of the former, while the summer of 2005 was a stupid time to spunk £30 million. Circumstances change.

 

Yes, Shepherd finding a way of investing in the squad might not have resulted in a win against Partizan. But the course of action taken didn't either. And at this point all of Bobby Robson's good work was unravelled and our current decline began.

 

if you can give me some valid reasons for the double standard I'm describing here...

 

It's not a double standard. Sometimes it's necessary to take risks, at other times it's necessary to be cautious. On some crucial occasions, Shepherd has picked the wrong times to make risks, and the wrong times to be cautious – if awarding an £8.5 million dividend to shareholders can be described as "caution", that is.

[Guest Knightrider]

HTL, some fair points, but does it not set alarm bells off in your head how the board decided to withdraw funding in 2003 despite being in a position financially to spend money, yet when when not in a position financially to spend money, they did (Owen, Luque etc.)?

 

Forget about finances for a minute, forget about all that just for a minute and go with me on this one.

 

It was obvious to everyone in the summer of 2003 that the squad, as good as it did to get us to 3rd, needed some new faces in the summer prior to the new season, to take us from 3rd to maybe Champions and more progress in the Champions League. The 6-2 defeat to Man Utd and our injuries towards the end of that season was evidence enough. The chances of improving on 3rd and making progress in the Champions League without more funding, was very slim, history has shown this. The general rule of thumb in football if you don't progress is that you go backwards, rarely do teams consolidate and stay as they are, that is why the Charltons will eventually get relegated if they don't keep on building on what they have, i.e. improving. This is how clubs are built and how Man Utd went from nothing major in the 80s to the global force they are today and indeed why Newcastle United under Sir John Hall and KK went from near relegation and with it perhaps extinction to within a whisker of the title within 5 short but very progressive years.

 

For some reason the board didn't anticipate this, they didn't seee this. Their manager, a proven one who had their trust and faith and all the fans' faith or 95% of us, asked for new faces, for more money, yet they turned him down, despite all summer saying funds would once again be made available, and instead paid themselves.

 

Now contrast that to the summer of 2005, just two short years later. It was obvious to everyone that no matter how much money was thrown at Souness, he would not succeed and most certainly not get us back into the positions we found ourselves in under Sir Bobby, yet they handed him more money than any other manager at this club has ever had to spend, despite the club's books showing we couldn't really afford to splash the cash, such was the decline post Robson. Everyone forecasted that because they'd literally put all their money on the wrong horse, we'd be in financial trouble for it and that the next manager's hands would be tied post Souness which has all came true today.

 

Yet again, for whatever reasons, the board didn't anticipate this, they didn't seee this.

 

Does that not alarm you?

 

What makes you or anyone believe one day, they'll be able to get it right? If they can't see the woods for the trees not once but twice now in two important periods in the club's history, despite having specialists and advisors on board to help them, despite results on the pitch pointing them in the right directions (6-2 against Man Utd showed how much further we still had to go, while finishing 14th under Souness from a position of 5th showed them just how wrong Souness was), how are they going to turn this mess around? How are we ever going to get back to challenging like we were under KK and SBR, and how do we financially become a viable business again?

 

I'm not too bothered about the ins and outs of why we didn't spend any money in 2003 or why we gave Souness a shit load to be honest, all I know is that both decisions have proved to be the wrong decisions and have been disasterous for this club and it's prospects. These are the results and facts, opinions don't matter here.

 

How many wrong decisions and disasters can they be excused? Is one enough, two? How many more can they get away with?

 

In 10 years, TEN, the club has went from 2nd in the league with one of the strongest and most valuable squads in the league, and second only to Manchester United (by tens of millions, not almost double) in the money league, to mid-table medicority with massive financial difficulties and a squad that is one of the smallest in the league. All this despite the 4th biggest turnover in the league, the 2nd highest gates, and only second to Man Utd and Liverpool pre Abramovic in transfer and wages spent.

 

How have we gotten it so spectacularly wrong so many times? We can blame the managers and of course they all play their part but sticking to the rule that results are the most important thing in football and the true barometer of sucess and failure then it goes without saying, based on results, this board has failed.

 

My point, why the club didn't spend in 2003 or not is insignificant and only worthy of futile debate and conjecture on an internet forum which can be spun any which way to suit whatever opinion is on offer. What can't be disputed nor ignored however is that the board made an almight mistake by not spending in 2003, one which they have tried and tried yet failed even more to make up for ever since.

 

Time for change.

[Parky]

HTL, some fair points, but does it not set alarm bells off in your head how the board decided to withdraw funding in 2003 despite being in a position financially to spend money, yet when when not in a position financially to spend money, they did (Owen, Luque etc.)?

 

Forget about finances for a minute, forget about all that just for a minute and go with me on this one.

 

It was obvious to everyone in the summer of 2003 that the squad, as good as it did to get us to 3rd, needed some new faces in the summer prior to the new season, to take us from 3rd to maybe Champions and more progress in the Champions League. The 6-2 defeat to Man Utd and our injuries towards the end of that season was evidence enough. The chances of improving on 3rd and making progress in the Champions League without more funding, was very slim, history has shown this. The general rule of thumb in football if you don't progress is that you go backwards, rarely do teams consolidate and stay as they are, that is why the Charltons will eventually get relegated if they don't keep on building on what they have, i.e. improving. This is how clubs are built and how Man Utd went from nothing major in the 80s to the global force they are today and indeed why Newcastle United under Sir John Hall and KK went from near relegation and with it perhaps extinction to within a whisker of the title within 5 short but very progressive years.

 

For some reason the board didn't anticipate this, they didn't seee this. Their manager, a proven one who had their trust and faith and all the fans' faith or 95% of us, asked for new faces, for more money, yet they turned him down, despite all summer saying funds would once again be made available, and instead paid themselves.

 

Now contrast that to the summer of 2005, just two short years later. It was obvious to everyone that no matter how much money was thrown at Souness, he would not succeed and most certainly not get us back into the positions we found ourselves in under Sir Bobby, yet they handed him more money than any other manager at this club has ever had to spend, despite the club's books showing we couldn't really afford to splash the cash, such was the decline post Robson. Everyone forecasted that because they'd literally put all their money on the wrong horse, we'd be in financial trouble for it and that the next manager's hands would be tied post Souness which has all came true today.

 

Yet again, for whatever reasons, the board didn't anticipate this, they didn't seee this.

 

Does that not alarm you?

 

What makes you or anyone believe one day, they'll be able to get it right? If they can't see the woods for the trees not once but twice now in two important periods in the club's history, despite having specialists and advisors on board to help them, despite results on the pitch pointing them in the right directions (6-2 against Man Utd showed how much further we still had to go, while finishing 14th under Souness from a position of 5th showed them just how wrong Souness was), how are they going to turn this mess around? How are we ever going to get back to challenging like we were under KK and SBR, and how do we financially become a viable business again?

 

I'm not too bothered about the ins and outs of why we didn't spend any money in 2003 or why we gave Souness a shit load to be honest, all I know is that both decisions have proved to be the wrong decisions and have been disasterous for this club and it's prospects. These are the results and facts, opinions don't matter here.

 

How many wrong decisions and disasters can they be excused? Is one enough, two? How many more can they get away with?

 

In 10 years, TEN, the club has went from 2nd in the league with one of the strongest and most valuable squads in the league, and second only to Manchester United (by tens of millions, not almost double) in the money league, to mid-table medicority with massive financial difficulties and a squad that is one of the smallest in the league. All this despite the 4th biggest turnover in the league, the 2nd highest gates, and only second to Man Utd and Liverpool pre Abramovic in transfer and wages spent.

 

How have we gotten it so spectacularly wrong so many times? We can blame the managers and of course they all play their part but sticking to the rule that results are the most important thing in football and the true barometer of sucess and failure then it goes without saying, based on results, this board has failed.

 

My point, why the club didn't spend in 2003 or not is insignificant and only worthy of futile debate and conjecture on an internet forum which can be spun any which way to suit whatever opinion is on offer. What can't be disputed nor ignored however is that the board made an almight mistake by not spending in 2003, one which they have tried and tried yet failed even more to make up for ever since.

 

Time for change.

 

Spot on Sir! blueyes.gif

[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.

 

If you say so.....

 

Here we go again, my last attempt at getting a proper reply from you on this subject.

 

Dividends

I'm not really interested in dividends that much, although I hadn't reailsed they'd taken £35m in dividends in the last 3.5 years.

 

They have taken £35m since the club has been a PLC. In 2003 they took 8.5m, in 2004 it was £4m and in 2005 a further 4m. So roughly the money required to replace Shearer with Owen

 

I suppose that's the price of being a PLC though. Wouldn't it be great if the club wasn't a PLC, although I would wonder why the club didn't spend copious amounts of cash on players when previous people ran the club, assuming they weren't at that time paying dividends. Don't spend any time on that paragraph though, as I said, I'm not that interested having accepted a PLC plans into it's budget the paying of dividends. You can disagree if you like but imo successive managers have been adequately backed financially to produce a successful team irrespective of the money that has gone out in dividends.

 

Football

We were talking about wages and the concept of bringing in players in summer 2003, at which point you made the assertion (or clear implication at least) that the club missed an opportunity by not bringing in more players during summer 2003.  We weren't talking about whether £8.5m spent on dividends would have been better spent on another player. I actually have no doubt you know what we were talking about. I'm asking you why you think it a good idea to increase the wage bill in summer 2003 by bringing in yet more players despite the documented fact the club had already strengthened the squad by bringing in 3 players in 2003. I'm asking you why you advocate spending yet more money over the £43m that had already been spent in those previous 32 months given how you try to put across an idea you believe in prudence, regularly using a lack of prudence by the Board as a stick with which to beat them.

 

If the club could not afford to bring in players in 2003 then it was the correct thing not to bring  them in. I absolutely agree with you if that is what you are really asking me. The board judged that the club could afford to spend £8.5m that summer. With hindsight they were wrong. The club could not afford tod spend that £8.5m, it is a major contributor to their being an overdraft now. If it was wrong to spend it on player(s) it was wrong to spend it on pension contributions too.

 

If I am to be accused of double standards then you must be too   If the club could afford to spend the money then you must want it to go on the team. Otherwise you are saying Douglas Hall's pension fund is more important to you than your football team. I'm pretty sure, unless you are Hall or Shepherd family member, that you do not believe this. 

 

Try not to refer once again to how much better it would have been had that £8.5m been spend on a player. That's not the answer and also don't tell me that I'd prefer the club paid dividends than bought players, that's the type of argumentative s**** I expect from mandiarse and isn't what I expect from you.

I'm surprised that you view team -building as something that stops when you reach the top 4. Why do Man U and Liverpool keep investing ?

[Howaythelads]

Tell me why, after a deficit of ~£43m and a huge increase in the size of the first team squad bolstered by 3 players already signed earlier in 2003, it was still essential the club bring in more players during the summer of 2003?

 

The Partizan game was one of the most important of the decade. It was absolutely essential that we win it and bag the resulting CL cash if we were to carry on progressing as a club.

 

Meanwhile, the season just finished had been marked by a constant feeling that we were over-achieving, doing better than we should have – until the 2-6 to Manchester United, and the sense that a young, inexperienced squad had been "found out".

 

You can try to pretend that signings in the January window somehow make up for the lack of them that summer, but the fact was that by the end of the season the squad was seriously reduced in confidence. It needed some reinforcement, something to lift the spirits. Instead we got only the divisive signing of Lee Bowyer on the cheap.

 

You can also tell me why, in the summer of 2003, the principle of spending of money the club didn't have for transfers was ok and the increase in wages to turnover ratio was ok, but it's not ok a few years later and that doing this kind of thing actually shows the board is incompetent.

 

There are times when it makes sense to speculate to accumulate, and times when it does not. I'd argue that the summer of 2003 was an example of the former, while the summer of 2005 was a stupid time to spunk £30 million. Circumstances change.

 

Yes, Shepherd finding a way of investing in the squad might not have resulted in a win against Partizan. But the course of action taken didn't either. And at this point all of Bobby Robson's good work was unravelled and our current decline began.

 

if you can give me some valid reasons for the double standard I'm describing here...

 

It's not a double standard. Sometimes it's necessary to take risks, at other times it's necessary to be cautious. On some crucial occasions, Shepherd has picked the wrong times to make risks, and the wrong times to be cautious – if awarding an £8.5 million dividend to shareholders can be described as "caution", that is.

 

The points you are making are all valid but I will tell you that those very reasons you have written down in your post are the reasons I thought the club needed to shift Shearer and change the manager. Said so at the time.

 

You and others may have thought we needed yet more players and that's your opinion, mine was different. We needed an entirely fresh approach but we had a decent enough squad to qualify for the CL.

 

By the time summer 2005 had arrived circumstance WERE very different. We now had a manager who had been backed in ridding the club of certain players allowed to go off the rails by Robson. It costs a lot of money to sacrifice players of that quality on a principle, even worse when it is an unfounded principle and manufactured. This was why the club had to throw away so much money backing Souness.

 

Thanks for replying.

[Howaythelads]

HTL, some fair points, but does it not set alarm bells off in your head how the board decided to withdraw funding in 2003 despite being in a position financially to spend money, yet when when not in a position financially to spend money, they did (Owen, Luque etc.)?

 

Forget about finances for a minute, forget about all that just for a minute and go with me on this one.

 

It was obvious to everyone in the summer of 2003 that the squad, as good as it did to get us to 3rd, needed some new faces in the summer prior to the new season, to take us from 3rd to maybe Champions and more progress in the Champions League. The 6-2 defeat to Man Utd and our injuries towards the end of that season was evidence enough. The chances of improving on 3rd and making progress in the Champions League without more funding, was very slim, history has shown this. The general rule of thumb in football if you don't progress is that you go backwards, rarely do teams consolidate and stay as they are, that is why the Charltons will eventually get relegated if they don't keep on building on what they have, i.e. improving. This is how clubs are built and how Man Utd went from nothing major in the 80s to the global force they are today and indeed why Newcastle United under Sir John Hall and KK went from near relegation and with it perhaps extinction to within a whisker of the title within 5 short but very progressive years.

 

For some reason the board didn't anticipate this, they didn't seee this. Their manager, a proven one who had their trust and faith and all the fans' faith or 95% of us, asked for new faces, for more money, yet they turned him down, despite all summer saying funds would once again be made available, and instead paid themselves.

 

Now contrast that to the summer of 2005, just two short years later. It was obvious to everyone that no matter how much money was thrown at Souness, he would not succeed and most certainly not get us back into the positions we found ourselves in under Sir Bobby, yet they handed him more money than any other manager at this club has ever had to spend, despite the club's books showing we couldn't really afford to splash the cash, such was the decline post Robson. Everyone forecasted that because they'd literally put all their money on the wrong horse, we'd be in financial trouble for it and that the next manager's hands would be tied post Souness which has all came true today.

 

Yet again, for whatever reasons, the board didn't anticipate this, they didn't seee this.

 

Does that not alarm you?

 

What makes you or anyone believe one day, they'll be able to get it right? If they can't see the woods for the trees not once but twice now in two important periods in the club's history, despite having specialists and advisors on board to help them, despite results on the pitch pointing them in the right directions (6-2 against Man Utd showed how much further we still had to go, while finishing 14th under Souness from a position of 5th showed them just how wrong Souness was), how are they going to turn this mess around? How are we ever going to get back to challenging like we were under KK and SBR, and how do we financially become a viable business again?

 

I'm not too bothered about the ins and outs of why we didn't spend any money in 2003 or why we gave Souness a s*** load to be honest, all I know is that both decisions have proved to be the wrong decisions and have been disasterous for this club and it's prospects. These are the results and facts, opinions don't matter here.

 

How many wrong decisions and disasters can they be excused? Is one enough, two? How many more can they get away with?

 

In 10 years, TEN, the club has went from 2nd in the league with one of the strongest and most valuable squads in the league, and second only to Manchester United (by tens of millions, not almost double) in the money league, to mid-table medicority with massive financial difficulties and a squad that is one of the smallest in the league. All this despite the 4th biggest turnover in the league, the 2nd highest gates, and only second to Man Utd and Liverpool pre Abramovic in transfer and wages spent.

 

How have we gotten it so spectacularly wrong so many times? We can blame the managers and of course they all play their part but sticking to the rule that results are the most important thing in football and the true barometer of sucess and failure then it goes without saying, based on results, this board has failed.

 

My point, why the club didn't spend in 2003 or not is insignificant and only worthy of futile debate and conjecture on an internet forum which can be spun any which way to suit whatever opinion is on offer. What can't be disputed nor ignored however is that the board made an almight mistake by not spending in 2003, one which they have tried and tried yet failed even more to make up for ever since.

 

Time for change.

 

See my previous reply, I think I've covered your points in that one.

[Howaythelads]

Answers at the bottom of the post....

 

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.

 

If you say so.....

 

Here we go again, my last attempt at getting a proper reply from you on this subject.

 

Dividends

I'm not really interested in dividends that much, although I hadn't reailsed they'd taken £35m in dividends in the last 3.5 years.

 

They have taken £35m since the club has been a PLC. In 2003 they took 8.5m, in 2004 it was £4m and in 2005 a further 4m. So roughly the money required to replace Shearer with Owen

 

I suppose that's the price of being a PLC though. Wouldn't it be great if the club wasn't a PLC, although I would wonder why the club didn't spend copious amounts of cash on players when previous people ran the club, assuming they weren't at that time paying dividends. Don't spend any time on that paragraph though, as I said, I'm not that interested having accepted a PLC plans into it's budget the paying of dividends. You can disagree if you like but imo successive managers have been adequately backed financially to produce a successful team irrespective of the money that has gone out in dividends.

 

Football

We were talking about wages and the concept of bringing in players in summer 2003, at which point you made the assertion (or clear implication at least) that the club missed an opportunity by not bringing in more players during summer 2003.  We weren't talking about whether £8.5m spent on dividends would have been better spent on another player. I actually have no doubt you know what we were talking about. I'm asking you why you think it a good idea to increase the wage bill in summer 2003 by bringing in yet more players despite the documented fact the club had already strengthened the squad by bringing in 3 players in 2003. I'm asking you why you advocate spending yet more money over the £43m that had already been spent in those previous 32 months given how you try to put across an idea you believe in prudence, regularly using a lack of prudence by the Board as a stick with which to beat them.

 

If the club could not afford to bring in players in 2003 then it was the correct thing not to bring  them in. I absolutely agree with you if that is what you are really asking me. The board judged that the club could afford to spend £8.5m that summer. With hindsight they were wrong. The club could not afford tod spend that £8.5m, it is a major contributor to their being an overdraft now. If it was wrong to spend it on player(s) it was wrong to spend it on pension contributions too.

 

If I am to be accused of double standards then you must be too   If the club could afford to spend the money then you must want it to go on the team. Otherwise you are saying Douglas Hall's pension fund is more important to you than your football team. I'm pretty sure, unless you are Hall or Shepherd family member, that you do not believe this. 

 

Try not to refer once again to how much better it would have been had that £8.5m been spend on a player. That's not the answer and also don't tell me that I'd prefer the club paid dividends than bought players, that's the type of argumentative s**** I expect from mandiarse and isn't what I expect from you.

I'm surprised that you view team -building as something that stops when you reach the top 4. Why do Man U and Liverpool keep investing ?

Answers start here:

 

They have taken £35m since the club has been a PLC. In 2003 they took 8.5m, in 2004 it was £4m and in 2005 a further 4m. So roughly the money required to replace Shearer with Owen

 

Yes, I know. Which begs the question why you feel the need to "spin" the £35m taken in dividends as a "reward for incompetence." If you were happy with their performance right through to 2003 then I'd suggest those dividends were in fact earned and so you should NOT be quoting this £35m figure in the way you do.

 

If the club could not afford to bring in players in 2003 then it was the correct thing not to bring  them in. I absolutely agree with you if that is what you are really asking me. The board judged that the club could afford to spend £8.5m that summer. With hindsight they were wrong. The club could not afford tod spend that £8.5m, it is a major contributor to their being an overdraft now. If it was wrong to spend it on player(s) it was wrong to spend it on pension contributions too.

 

As you know, what I said was that the club as a PLC the club has a plan to allocate 'x' funds to each activity/requirement to run the business. Funds had been allocated for transfers and had been spent by the manager. It was decided to allocate certain funds to dividends. I don't like the club being a PLC but it's now a fact of life. Just as long as they financially back the manager I think they are fulfilling their responsibilities to the manager and also the hopes of the fans. They must also attempt to fulfill their responsiblities to the shareholders, whether you and others like it or not.

 

If I am to be accused of double standards then you must be too Smile  If the club could afford to spend the money then you must want it to go on the team. Otherwise you are saying Douglas Hall's pension fund is more important to you than your football team. I'm pretty sure, unless you are Hall or Shepherd family member, that you do not believe this.

 

I understand what you're writing here but it honestly makes very little sense if you follow what I've already said and have repeated in this post. You're clutching at straws imo.

 

I'm surprised that you view team -building as something that stops when you reach the top 4. Why do Man U and Liverpool keep investing ?

 

Here you go again making things up as you go along. So it's now time to tell you to fuck off. Sorry you had to spoil the post.

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Fair enough HTL, and I remember you saying those things at the time, which most disagreed with you over, myself included, although I agreed Shearer needed to become less involved in the first-team (and so did Sir Bobby which is why he wanted some cash that summer, for a new striker). That's your opinion and I can see why you went with that, but that would have been mighty brave and would have been a massive risk for the board and no guarantee of succeeding, in fact the reverse was more likely. I think Sir Bobby needed to go after we finished 5th but had he had some money that year, we would have made 4th in my opinion. The defence was water tight, we only lost 8 games that year, but struggled for goals. Towards the end Shearer was running on empty, Cort had been sold, Chopra went out on loan, Bellamy was injured and Ameobi was inexperienced, we needed a striker in January and Bobby pleaded for funds, but all he got was Bridges.

 

It can be argued again, that the board failed to anticipate the effect injuries would have on the team and our season, especially as injuries had effected our run in on the way to 3rd the season before, not spending in January also proved a mistake. They might have been able to get away with the mistake to not spend in the close season. Who knows, had Bobby been able to bolster his squad with a striker and another defender, we may have made it past Marseille in the UEFA Cup and above Liverpool into the Champions League, changing the course of our history and Liverpool's who went on to claim the Champions League the following season, that could so easily have been us.

 

At the time those things didn't really mean much but as we look back now, they proved to be fatal errors and have been disasterous to the club and its prospects.

[macbeth]

 

 

Yes, I know. Which begs the question why you feel the need to "spin" the £35m taken in dividends as a "reward for incompetence." If you were happy with their performance right through to 2003 then I'd suggest those dividends were in fact earned and so you should NOT be quoting this £35m figure in the way you do.

 

As I have said to NE5 I will never approve, and never have, of dividends. He managed to find some article from 1852 that I wrote in the Mag bemoaning the fact that the club were giving money away. I have been consistent in this. I was up against a wall of indifference at that time as the team were in Europe and no one really card how much was being bled from the club. I won't ever change in that view. Shareholders should get their reward by installing directors and managers who make the business more attractive and therefore increase the share price, allowing them to divest of their shares when they feel they have made the return required. I cannot see any justification whatever for dividends of £35m on top of losses of £23m. The business is worth £58m less today than it was when they took over. Some seem to just shrug and say they were unlucky with circumstances, but £58m wort of unlucky is VERY unlucky circumstances.

 

 

 

If the club could not afford to bring in players in 2003 then it was the correct thing not to bring  them in. I absolutely agree with you if that is what you are really asking me. The board judged that the club could afford to spend £8.5m that summer. With hindsight they were wrong. The club could not afford tod spend that £8.5m, it is a major contributor to their being an overdraft now. If it was wrong to spend it on player(s) it was wrong to spend it on pension contributions too.

 

As you know, what I said was that the club as a PLC the club has a plan to allocate 'x' funds to each activity/requirement to run the business. Funds had been allocated for transfers and had been spent by the manager. It was decided to allocate certain funds to dividends. I don't like the club being a PLC but it's now a fact of life. Just as long as they financially back the manager I think they are fulfilling their responsibilities to the manager and also the hopes of the fans. They must also attempt to fulfill their responsiblities to the shareholders, whether you and others like it or not.

 

 

So they had always planned to offer the Halls £4.5m for a chunk of their shares? YOu don't really belive that do you? Why to no one else? Why only in the year that Cameron Hall made such disastrous results? Wy have the dividends suddenly stopped? Why did Shepherd tell us that the signing of Woodgate was from the unexpected windfall from CL success?  Why did the subsequent planning mean we had to have an overdraft for the first time, or that we had to take £8m worth of sponsorship early? I just don't see a plan, or not as you describe it. If they did plan to be in this mes s then they want shooting. I don't believe they did plan it, it just 'happened' withotu them really noticing.  In much the same was as a new manager is appointed on the hoof, they have financial planning on the hoof. Hopefully the new guy wil bring some discipline.

 

 

 

I'm surprised that you view team -building as something that stops when you reach the top 4. Why do Man U and Liverpool keep investing ?

 

Here you go again making things up as you go along. So it's now time to tell you to f*** off. Sorry you had to spoil the post.

Sorry. You seemed to suggest that team-building was complete as we had bought in Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer (plus the others over the previous couple of year, but those three in 2003). If I misunderstood what you meant I apologise, but that was how it read.

 

 

[NE5]

Fair enough HTL, and I remember you saying those things at the time, which most disagreed with you over, myself included, although I agreed Shearer needed to become less involved in the first-team (and so did Sir Bobby which is why he wanted some cash that summer, for a new striker). That's your opinion and I can see why you went with that, but that would have been mighty brave and would have been a massive risk for the board and no guarantee of succeeding, in fact the reverse was more likely. I think Sir Bobby needed to go after we finished 5th but had he had some money that year, we would have made 4th in my opinion. The defence was water tight, we only lost 8 games that year, but struggled for goals. Towards the end Shearer was running on empty, Cort had been sold, Chopra went out on loan, Bellamy was injured and Ameobi was inexperienced, we needed a striker in January and Bobby pleaded for funds, but all he got was Bridges.

 

It can be argued again, that the board failed to anticipate the effect injuries would have on the team and our season, especially as injuries had effected our run in on the way to 3rd the season before, not spending in January also proved a mistake. They might have been able to get away with the mistake to not spend in the close season. Who knows, had Bobby been able to bolster his squad with a striker and another defender, we may have made it past Marseille in the UEFA Cup and above Liverpool into the Champions League, changing the course of our history and Liverpool's who went on to claim the Champions League the following season, that could so easily have been us.

 

At the time those things didn't really mean much but as we look back now, they proved to be fatal errors and have been disasterous to the club and its prospects.

 

A lot of this is fair comment.

 

I'm in a reflective mood just now...there have been so many occasions where "if" is so appropriate. "If" we had not lost at home to manu in 1996 - "if" we had played well in just one of the Wembley Finals - "if" we had beaten Chelsea in the Semi Final - "if" we had got Bobby Robson 2 years earlier - "if Alan Shearer not been injured at Everton - "if" Craig Bellamy had not been hurt against the mackems when we had crept into 2nd place - "if" we had sacked Bobby Robson earlier - with hindsight "if" we had kept him a bit longer instead of appointing Souness. The last one being an atrocious decision, with serious repercussions.  But I'm not feeling like blaming anyone just now. It just feels like we are the true "nearly" men of football.

 

Maybe we should  have spent more money in the summer of 2003, maybe not. But either way, we SHOULD have beaten Partizan, we were 1-0 up from the away leg. And staring at our first penalty shoot out win during the shoot out too. They bottled that too.  I remember reading on the mackems board, RTG, the next day and a mackem posted that this could turn out to be a major turning point for us, and an opportunity lost, and that remark has proved to be totally correct.